We will use the proof by contradiction.
Suppose , there exists a sequence in such that
|
|
|
By (2.13), (2.14) and being constant, we know that
, and are bounded sequences, one can assume
|
|
|
It follows from (2.10) that
(3.4) |
|
|
|
and
(3.5) |
|
|
|
By use of (3.1), we obtain
(3.6) |
|
|
|
and
(3.7) |
|
|
|
(3.2) yields
(3.8) |
|
|
|
Since and is non-zero constant, we draw that
|
|
|
Then (3.4) and (3.6) imply
(3.9) |
|
|
|
It follows from (3.5), (3.7) and (3.9) that
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thus,
(3.10) |
|
|
|
It follows from (2.13) that
(3.11) |
|
|
|
Specifically,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Then by (3.8) and (3.9), we conclude that
(3.12) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Combining (3.10) with (3.12), we infer
(3.13) |
|
|
|
If , (3.13) implies
that .
It is a contradiction.
If , we can also obtain contradictions. In fact,
we can declare that . Otherwise, we know that for from (2.14).
Then by (3.10), we infer . It is a contradiction.
Assuming . From the first equation of (3.11) and (3.13), we draw
|
|
|
Then
(3.14) |
|
|
|
Consequently
the following relationship
(3.15) |
|
|
|
can be derived by the simple calculation from (3.10).
It follows from (2.14), (3.14) and (3.15) that
|
|
|
and
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is impossible. Assuming . Using the similar methods to also obtain contradictions. The proof of the Theorem 3.2 is thus finished.
β